Delhi District Court
Bhasin) vs . Pawan Chaudary And Anr. on 20 February, 2020
CS No.9640/16
M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish
Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL: ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE01 ( WEST ), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
CS No.9640/16
In the matter of :
M/s.Tulip Holidays
(Through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin)
117119, Jaina Tower1
District Centre, Janakpuri
New Delhi110058.
... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh.Pawan Chaudary
S/o Sh.Kavuri Garikaish Chaudary
R/o A1101, World SPA East
Sector31 & 40, Gurgaon
Haryana122001
Also at:
Vygon India Pvt.Ltd.
747, Udhyog Vihar PhaseV
Gurgaon, Haryana
Page: 1/38
CS No.9640/16
M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish
Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
2. Anu Anand
B401, Central Park, Sector42
Gurgaon, Haryana
Also at:
F105, Richmand Park
DLF PhaseIV, Gurgaon, Haryana
... Defendants
Date of institution of suit : 09.10.2013
Date on which judgment reserved : 11.02.2020
Date on which judgment pronounced : 20.02.2020
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.3,42,286/ alongwith interest against the defendants.
2. The brief facts which can be culled out from the plaint are that plaintiff is a duly registered part Page: 2/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
nership firm having its office at Janak Puri, New Delhi and is running business of booking Air Ticket/Ferry Ticket, Hotel Booking etc.
3. It is averred that defendant no.1 is working in a company by the name of Vygon India Pvt.Ltd. and used to engage plaintiff for booking Air Ticket/Ferry Ticket, Hotel Booking etc. for official purposes and personal visits.
4. It is further averred that defendant no.1 hired services of plaintiff to book Air Ticket/Ferry Ticket and hotel for stay for self and for defendant no.2 and her two sons for Hong Kong visit. Accordingly plaintiff had booked Air Tickets/Ferry tickets and Hotel rooms for defendants and two sons of defendant no.2 for their travel to Hong Kong and defendants and two sons of defendant no.2 had Page: 3/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
travelled to Hong Kong and enjoyed the trip with satisfactory services provided by plaintiff.
5. However, after their return when plaintiff requested defendants to pay the amount in respect of Air Tickets/Ferry Tickets and hotel booking, the same was denied by defendants on the ground that M/s Professional VISA was unable to get Visa for Spain and France for defendant no.2 and her two sons.
6. It is averred in the suit that plaintiff is nowhere responsible for rejection of Visa for Spain and France of defendant no.2 and her two sons and he was not dealing in Visa formalities and on the request of defendants, defendants were asked to get their Visa formalities done through M/s.Professional VISA. Accordingly, the present Page: 4/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
suit was filed claiming Rs.3,42,286/ on account of air tickets/ferry tickets and hotel booking for the trip undertaken by defendants and two sons of defendant no.2 to Hong Kong. Plaintiff has also prayed for 24% per annum pendente lite and future interest on the aforementioned amount.
7. The defendants on being served, had filed their written statement.
8. In the written statement filed by defendants, a preliminary objection was taken regarding the suit being barred on the ground that plaintiff's partnership firm is not registered and secondly, on the ground that this court is not having the territorial jurisdiction to try this case as entire deal had taken place in Gurugram, Haryana.
Page: 5/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
9. On merits, it was admitted that defendants had indeed availed the trip to Hong Kong. However, the trip to Hong Kong was arranged by plaintiff as compensatory trip for Rs.1 Lac to compensate defendants for the loss suffered by them due to rejection of Visa applications of defendant no.2 and her two sons by plaintiff and his associate Sh.Vipin Seth.
10. It was submitted that sometime in the month of June, 2013, defendant no. 1 had planned to travel to France and Spain alongwith defendant no.2 and her two sons and since plaintiff had long association with defendant no.1's company M/s Vygon India Pvt. Ltd., therefore, he was contacted and he had assured defendants that he can arrange for trip to Spain and France by booking Page: 6/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
air tickets, hotel bookings as well as by arranging for Visa.
11. It was submitted that plaintiff had assured defendants that in case they apply for Visa from the Embassy of Spain, then he will get Visa for defendant no.2 and her children within a week. Accordingly, Visa was applied by defendant no.2 and her two sons at Spanish Embassy but the same was got rejected on account of inexperienced and gross negligence of plaintiff's partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin and his associate Sh.Vipin Seth.
12. It was further submitted that due to rejection of Visa of defendant no.2 and her two sons, defendant no.2 and her sons could not travel to Spain and France.
Page: 7/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
13. It was submitted that due to rejection of Visa of defendant no.2 and her children for travel to Spain and France, defendants were embarrassed of not being able to fulfil the promise made to their friends and business associates at Europe and also suffered financial losses on account of failed business proposals of tie ups and joint ventures with respect to the publication business of the defendants.
14. It was further submitted that plaintiff also felt embarrassed of not having fulfilled his commitments and alternatively proposed holiday for defendants and two sons of defendant no.2 to Hong Kong.
15. It was further submitted that plaintiff had assured that trip to Hong Kong would not cost Page: 8/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
more than Rs.1 Lac to defendants and additional expenditure shall be subsidized by plaintiff.
16. It was further submitted that after coming back from Hong Kong trip, defendants were shocked to receive invoice to the tune of Rs. 3,39,000/ and rates quoted in the invoice were much higher than the best rates available in the market. Accordingly, a prayer was made to dismiss the suit.
17. In the replication, it was asserted by plaintiff that plaintiff's firm is a registered partnership firm being registered on 26.09.2013.
18. It was denied that this court is not having the territorial jurisdiction to try this case.
Page: 9/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
19. It was again reiterated that plaintiff's firm had not made any offer to the defendants for arranging for their Visa to Spain and France.
20. It was again asserted that plaintiff had only referred defendant no.1 to Sh.Vipin Seth of M/S.Professional VISA for Visa formalities.
21. It was denied that Visa of defendant no.2 and her two sons for Spain and France was got rejected due to mishandling of Visa papers by plaintiff.
22. It was denied that as compensation, plaintiff had offered Hong Kong trip to defendants and two sons of defendant no.2 at the cost of Rs.1 Lac and remaining amount was required to be subsidized by plaintiff.
Page: 10/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
23. It was again reiterated that defendants are liable to pay suit amount with interest.
24. From the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 05.09.2014:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.3,42,286/ from the defendants as prayed for? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendentelite and future interest @ 24% per annum, as prayed for? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP (3) Relief.
25. Thereafter, the matter was posted for plaintiff's evidence.
26. Plaintiff had examined one of its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin as PW1. PW1 had relied upon Page: 11/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
registration certificate of his firm Ex.PW1/A, copy of invoice Ex.PW1/B (colly) and copy of legal notice and its postal receipts Ex.PW1/C to Ex.PW1/E.
27. PW1 was thoroughly cross examined by defendant. No other witness was examined on behalf of plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
28. Thereafter, the matter was posted for defence evidence.
29. In defendant's evidence, defendant no.1 had stepped into the witness box and examined himself as DW1. DW1 was also thoroughly cross examined by plaintiff. No other witness was examined on behalf of defendant. Accordingly, the Page: 12/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
defence evidence was closed. Thereafter, the matter was posted for final arguments.
30. I have heard Sh.M.K.Sharma, Ld.counsel for plaintiff and Sh.Abhishek Rai, Sh.Kunal Kohli and Ms.Arushi Chhabra, Ld.counsels for defendant. I have also carefully perused the material available on record.
31. It was submitted by ld.counsel for plaintiff that plaintiff has proved its case to be entitled to the suit amount alongwith interest.
32. It was submitted that it is not in dispute that defendants had availed the Hong Kong trip through plaintiff's firm.
Page: 13/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
33. It was further submitted that even the amount of invoice of Rs.3,42,286/ has not been disputed by defendants with regard to Honk Kong trip.
34. It was submitted that the only defence of defendants is that plaintiff had assured to sponsor their Hong Kong trip at the cost of Rs.1 Lac and remaining amount was required to be subsidized by plaintiff on account of mishandling of Visa papers for trip to Spain and France of defendant no.2 and her two sons.
35. It was submitted by ld.counsel for plaintiff that since defendants have taken up the defence that they are only liable to pay Rs.1 Lac against the invoice Ex.PW1/B (colly), therefore, onus was upon the defendants to prove on record that defendants were only liable to pay Rs.1 Lac and Page: 14/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
not the amount mentioned in the invoice Ex.PW1/B (colly).
36. It was submitted that no evidence has been lead on record by defendants showing their limited liability of Rs.1 Lac only. On the contrary, defendant no.1/DW1 in his cross examination has admitted that he has not placed on record any document to support his claim that he is not liable to pay the amount more than Rs.1 Lac.
37. It was further submitted that the other defence of defendants was that plaintiff had charged exorbitant rate for the Hong Kong trip. However, defendants had failed to prove the same also as DW1 admitted in his cross examination that he has not placed on record any document to show Page: 15/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
that defendants were charged exorbitant rates by plaintiff for Hong Kong trip.
38. It was further submitted that stand of plaintiff right from the filing of suit was that they had not offered any Visa services for Spain and France as they were not dealing with Visa and defendant has taken up a wrong defence of putting responsibility upon plaintiff with regard to rejection of Visa to Spain and France.
39. It was further submitted that at the request of defendant no.1, plaintiff had referred the defendants to Sh.Vipin Seth of M/S.Professional VISA with regard to availing Visa services for Spain and France and whatever deficiency of services had taken place, was on the part of Page: 16/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
Sh.Vipin Seth and plaintiff had no role to play in the same.
40. It was further submitted that since plaintiff had no role to play in the application of Visa to Spain and France for defendant no.2 and her two sons, therefore, there is no question of plaintiff compensating Hong Kong trip for defendants by only demanding Rs.1 Lac from them.
41. It was further submitted that the courts in Delhi have the territorial jurisdiction to try this case as plaintiff's office is situated in Janakpuri, new Delhi. Further, orders were placed by defendants at the office of plaintiff in Delhi and even the invoices were raised by plaintiff from Delhi and payment was also required to be paid by defendants at the office of plaintiff in Delhi.
Page: 17/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
42. It was further submitted that since deal had taken place between plaintiff and defendant over email or through telephone, therefore, plaintiff had accepted the offer of defendants for their Hong Kong trip at Delhi. Therefore, contract concluded in Delhi and hence, courts in Delhi have the territorial jurisdiction to try this case. Accordingly, a prayer was made to decree the suit.
43. On the other hand, it was submitted by ld.counsel for defendants that the courts in Delhi have got no territorial jurisdiction to try this case.
44. It was submitted that plaintiff and defendant no.1 being the Managing Director of M/s. Vygon India Pvt.Ltd. were known to each other from 20052006 and M/s. Vygon India Pvt.Ltd. was based in Gurugram, Haryana and was giving huge Page: 18/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
business to plaintiff and this fact is admitted by PW1 in his cross examination.
45. It was further submitted that since the office of M/s. Vygon India Pvt.Ltd. was in Gurugram, Haryana, therefore, it was the plaintiff, who used to travel to Gurugram Office of defendant no.1 for the purpose of business and it is not expected that defendant no.1, who was the Managing Director of M/s. Vygon India Pvt.Ltd. would have come to Delhi to negotiate the tickets for Hong Kong trip.
46. It was further submitted that PW1 has also ad mitted in his cross examination that he was deal ing with the office at Gurugram, Haryana of de fendant no.1 since 20042005. Therefore, since no cause of action had taken place in Delhi, there fore, this court does not have the territorial juris Page: 19/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
diction to try this case. Therefore, on this ground itself, suit deserves to be dismissed.
47. It was further submitted that although defen dants do not dispute going on Hong Kong trip through plaintiff's firm but liability of the defen dants is only to the extent of Rs.1 Lac.
48. It was submitted that since plaintiff had mis handled Spain and France Visa of defendant no.2, which lead to rejection of her Visa, therefore, de fendant no.2 and her sons could not travel to France and Spain and defendants had to suffer fi nancial loss on account of failed business propos als. Therefore, in order to compensate defendants, plaintiff had offered them Hong Kong trip at Rs.1 Lac.
Page: 20/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
49. It was submitted that defence of defendant no.1 is supported by the admission of PW1 in his cross examination. It was submitted that PW1 in his cross examination has admitted that he knew Sh.Vipin Seth of M/S.Professional VISA and plain tiff and M/s.Professional VISA were having per sonal relations.
50. It was further submitted that Sh.Vipin Seth of M/s.Professional VISA was an associate of plain tiff and that is why plaintiff admitted in his cross examination that he had written an email to Sh.Vipin Seth on 16.07.2013 complaining about mishandling of Visa papers of defendant no.2 and her two sons which further proves that Visa of de fendant no.2 to Spain and France was rejected on account of mishandling of Visa papers by plaintiff and his associate Sh.Vipin Seth.
Page: 21/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
51. It was further submitted that on account of ad mission made by PW1 about writing an email to Sh.Vipin Seth, it is established on record that plaintiff and his associate were responsible for get ting the Visa rejected of defendant no.2 and her two sons to Spain and France and that is why plaintiff had offered compensatory trip at the cost of Rs.1 Lac to defendants to Hong Kong. Accord ingly, a prayer was made to dismiss the suit.
52. In rebuttal, ld.counsel for plaintiff has submit ted that writing of an email to Sh.Vipin Seth re flects the natural human conduct of any person, who makes reference regarding some work to some other person.
53. It was submitted that if defendants were re ferred by plaintiff to Sh.Vipin Seth and if Sh.Vipin Page: 22/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
Seth had mishandled the Visa papers of defen dants, then it was natural for the plaintiff to have made a protest/complaint to Sh.Vipi Seth by writ ing an email dated 16.07.2013.
54. It was further submitted that the complaint made by plaintiff to Sh.Vipin Seth does not amount to any admission on the part of plaintiff that he had arranged for the Visa services of de fendants to Spain and France. On the contrary, it shows that plaintiff had no role to play in han dling of Visa to France and Spain of defendants and that is why he had made a complaint to Sh.Vipin Seth for mishandling of Visa services for defendants, who were his clients. Accordingly, it was again reiterated that suit of plaintiff deserves to be decreed.
Page: 23/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
55. I have considered the rival submissions of re spective counsels and have carefully perused the record.
56. My finding on various issues is as under:
57. Issue No.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.3,42,286/ from the defendants as prayed for? OPP
58. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
59. In the present case, defendants have not dis puted regarding availing of Hong Kong trip through plaintiff. Defendants have also not dis puted air, ferry tickets and hotel booking amount of Rs.3,42,286/vide invoice Ex.PW1/B (colly).
Page: 24/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
60. The only defence which defendants have taken against the liability of invoice amount is that they are only liable to pay Rs.1 Lac as plaintiff had of fered to compensate the Hong Kong trip on ac count of mishandling of Visa papers to Spain and France of defendant no.2 and her two sons.
61. Since defendants had taken up this defence, therefore, onus had shifted upon defendants to have proved the said defence.
62. The defendants were firstly required to prove on record that any Visa services were offered by plaintiff to defendants for Spain and France.
63. The plaintiff had categorically denied that he had offered any Visa services for Spain and France to defendants.
Page: 25/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
64. The stand of plaintiff was proved on record by defendants during the cross examination of PW1 when they suggested to PW1 that it was the PW1, who had referred the defendant no.1 to Sh.Vipin Seth of M/S.Professional VISA which PW1 admit ted to be correct. Therefore, since it has come on record that only role played by plaintiff was in rec ommending defendant no.1 to Sh.Vipin Seth of M/S.Professional VISA , therefore, it cannot be said that plaintiff had mishandled any Visa ser vices for defendants to France and Spain.
65. Further, writing of email by plaintiff to Sh.Vipin Seth complaining about mishandling of VISA applications of defendant no.2 do not in any way establish that Sh.Vipin Seth was associate of plaintiff and both were responsible for rejection of Visa. Any reasonable and prudent man, who is Page: 26/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
concerned about his business and reputation would have raised a complaint in case there was mishandling of any work recommended by that person. Therefore, writing of email by PW1 to Sh.Vipin Seth was done due to business commit ments and to protect the interest of clients of plaintiff i.e. defendants and do not in any way es tablish owning of responsibility by plaintiff regard ing rejection of Visa of defendant no.2.
66. Further, during the cross examination of DW1, DW1 deposed that he has got an email from plain tiff showing that he had offered Visa services to defendant. However, no such email was placed on record by defendant which makes this court draw an adverse inference under Section 114 of the In dian Evidence Act, 1872 against defendant that there was no such email written by plaintiff offer Page: 27/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
ing Visa services and that is why the same was not placed on record.
67. Further, it is the defence of defendants that due to rejection of Visa of defendant no.2 and her two sons to Spain and France, they had suffered busi ness losses due to which plaintiff had compen sated their Hong Kong trip. However, this defence is also not established on record by defendants.
68. The defendant no.1 has not placed on record any document to show that he has suffered any kind of business loss due to rejection of Visa of de fendant no.2 to Spain and France.
69. On the contrary, what has come on record in the evidence of PW1 is that defendant no.1 and 2 were partners in a publication house namely Wis dom Village Pubication Pvt.Ltd. and proposed Page: 28/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
travelling of defendants no.1 and 2 to Spain and France was in connection with business proposal and joint venture with respect to their publication business.
70. It is an admitted case of defendant no.1 that he had a valid Visa for Spain and France and he had indeed travelled to France and only after his re turn from France, he had travelled to Hong Kong alongwith defendant no.2 and her two sons. Since defendant no.1 being partner of Wisdom Village Publication Pvt.Ltd. was able to travel to France and Spain, therefore, question of defendants no.1 and 2 suffering loss in connection with business proposal and joint venture in Spain and France does not arise. Defendant no.1 being a partner of Wisdom Village Pubication Pvt.Ltd. could have easily negotiated business proposal and joint ven Page: 29/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
ture with respect to publication business of his partnership firm with defendant no.2.
71. Even otherwise, onus was upon defendants to have established on record losses suffered by them on account of nontraveling of defendant no.2 and her two sons to Spain and France. But no evidence was lead on record by defendant to show that on account of nontraveling and aborting of trip by defendant no.2 and her two sons, defendant no.1 felt handicapped in negotiating business proposal for their publication business and accordingly, de fendants had suffered losses.
72. Since defendants had failed to establish on record any business losses suffered by them, there fore, it is not believable that plaintiff would have Page: 30/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
offered to compensate Hong Kong trip of defen dants and two sons of defendant no.2.
73. The other defence of defendant was that plain tiff had charged exorbitant rates for Hong Kong trip, therefore, they were not liable to pay the amount mentioned in the invoice Ex.PW1/B (colly).
74. Even this defence was not established on record by defendants as no quotation of other travel agent was produced on record to show that amount charged by plaintiff for air/ferry tickets and hotel bookings for Hong Kong were highly ex orbitant.
75. Even DW1 in his cross examination had admit ted that he has not placed on record any docu ment to show that plaintiff had charged exorbitant Page: 31/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
rates for their Hong Kong trip. Therefore, in ab sence of any document on record, this defence of defendant was never established on record.
76. Therefore, in the light of evidence which has come on record of PW1, invoice Ex.PW1/B (colly) which is not in dispute by defendants and having regard to the fact that defence of defendant no.1 was not established on record, plaintiff has proved that he is entitled to recover the invoice amount i.e. Rs.3,42,286/ from the defendants. Accord ingly, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.
77. Issue No.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendentelite and future interest @ 24% per annum, as prayed for? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP Page: 32/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
78. The onus to prove that plaintiff is entitled to 24% per annum pendentelite and future interest on the invoice amount from defendants,was upon plaintiff.
79. In this connection, plaintiff has referred to in voice Ex.PW1/B(colly) where it is specifically mentioned that if amount mentioned in the in voice is not paid, then interest @ 24% per annum would be chargeable.
80. To make the defendants liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum on the basis of invoice Ex.PW1/B(colly), plaintiff was required to prove on record that defendant no.1 had agreed to the said condition mentioned in the invoice Ex.PW1/B(colly).
Page: 33/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
81. However, there is no acknowledgment made by defendants on invoice Ex.PW1/B(colly) from where inference can be drawn that contract had been entered into between plaintiff and defen dants whereby they had agreed to pay 24% per annum rate of interest on the invoice amount.
82. Even otherwise, even if it is assumed that defendants had agreed to 24% per annum rate of interest, then also in the opinion of this court, it is highly exorbitant. Therefore, as per Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this court while exercising its discretion hereby grants interest @ 9% p.a. (as transaction is commercial) from the date of filing the suit till its payment. This issue is decided accordingly, in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
83. Before parting with this judgment, I would also Page: 34/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
like to deal with the issue of jurisdiction raised by ld.counsel for defendants during the course of arguments even though no issue was framed on this aspect.
84. Defendants had taken a specific objection in the written statement that this court has got no territorial jurisdiction to try this case.
85. Since the issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and issue being a legal one, therefore, it is imperative that this issue be decided even though the same was not specifically framed in this regard.
86. I am unable to agree with the submission put forward by the ld.counsel for defendants that courts in Delhi have got no territorial jurisdiction Page: 35/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
to try this case.
87. The plaintiff is having its office at Janak Puri, new Delhi and invoice Ex.PW1/B(colly) had been raised from Delhi.
88. Further, it is not in dispute between the parties that negotiation with regard to purchase of tickets and hotel bookings were done either through email or through telephone.
89. Even assuming that negotiations have taken place through telephone, then also contract was deemed to have been concluded in Delhi as offer of defendants with regard to Hong Kong trip would have been accepted by plaintiff in Delhi and thereafter, tickets/hotel bookings would have been got done by plaintiff from his Delhi office.
Page: 36/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
90. Further, payment with regard to invoice Ex.PW1/B(colly) were required to be made in Delhi. Therefore, courts in Delhi have got the territorial jurisdiction to try this case and submission of ld.counsel for defendants that this court has got no territorial jurisdiction to try this case is devoid of any merit and is accordingly, rejected.
91. Issue No.3 Relief.
In the light of my finding given to issues no.1 and 2, the suit of plaintiff is decreed and defendants are directed to pay to plaintiff a sum of Rs.3,42,286/ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the suit till Page: 37/38 CS No.9640/16 M/s.Tulip Holidays (through its partner Sh.Hanish Bhasin) Vs. Pawan Chaudary and Anr.
its payment. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
92. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court (Vikas Dhull) Dated: 20.02.2020 Additional District Judge 01 THC/West/Delhi Page: 38/38